EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › The PSIA does NOT teach people how to ski!!!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The PSIA does NOT teach people how to ski!!!!! - Page 2

post #31 of 44
So would you call teaching a wedge, or wedge christie, or parallel turn an outcome or a mold. It just isn't that black and white SD. I would add that teaching the base skills to perform any and all of these maneuvers is preferable to teaching the maneuvers per se. Which IMO is part of teaching tactics as well as movements. The eventual outcome being able to match an appropriate maneuver to the terrain. Which is easier if you have a working knowledge of the underlying skills it takes to perform those maneuvers competently.
post #32 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
So would you call teaching a wedge, or wedge christie, or parallel turn an outcome or a mold. It just isn't that black and white SD. I would add that teaching the base skills to perform any and all of these maneuvers is preferable to teaching the maneuvers per se. Which IMO is part of teaching tactics as well as movements. The eventual outcome being able to match an appropriate maneuver to the terrain. Which is easier if you have a working knowledge of the underlying skills it takes to perform those maneuvers competently.
This is a great post as it helped clarify something for me. I often struggled to figure out why so many people here believe that before they could do some video MA they needed to know what a skiers "goals" were..or intent. After reading this post, and inline with this thread it occoured to me it is so the person doing the MA knows which "mold" to evaluate the skier against.

You are right JASP that things are not "that simple". But they are not rocket science either.

Why create a definition for somthing that can be easily explained in two words...UUW or DUW as done by the CSIA is actually an entire concept, that takes a bit to explain, so just having a definition for it makes sence.

But what is the concept behind if you flex in the lower half of the turn that is DUW? Why not just call it what it is...flexing in the lower half of the turn...much easier.....or flexing into the transition.

Then evaluate that "Flexing" against the UUW concept?

Seems much simplier then creating multi-syllabic terms for everything....
post #33 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
This is a great post as it helped clarify something for me. I often struggled to figure out why so many people here believe that before they could do some video MA they needed to know what a skiers "goals" were..or intent.
You just figured that out? The reason is simple, to justify poor skiing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
Why create a definition for somthing that can be easily explained in two words...UUW or DUW as done by the CSIA is actually an entire concept, that takes a bit to explain, so just having a definition for it makes sence.

But what is the concept behind if you flex in the lower half of the turn that is DUW? Why not just call it what it is...flexing in the lower half of the turn...much easier.....or flexing into the transition.
Yeah something simple like say..."flex to Release".
post #34 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by volklskier1 View Post
You just figured that out? The reason is simple, to justify poor skiing.".
Well I dont think it justifies poor skiing...but it is certainly used to justify poor teaching.
post #35 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
This is a great post as it helped clarify something for me. I often struggled to figure out why so many people here believe that before they could do some video MA they needed to know what a skiers "goals" were..or intent. After reading this post, and inline with this thread it occoured to me it is so the person doing the MA knows which "mold" to evaluate the skier against.

You are right JASP that things are not "that simple". But they are not rocket science either.

Why create a definition for somthing that can be easily explained in two words...UUW or DUW as done by the CSIA is actually an entire concept, that takes a bit to explain, so just having a definition for it makes sence.

But what is the concept behind if you flex in the lower half of the turn that is DUW? Why not just call it what it is...flexing in the lower half of the turn...much easier.....or flexing into the transition.

Then evaluate that "Flexing" against the UUW concept?

Seems much simplier then creating multi-syllabic terms for everything....
Reminds me of my Father's famous quote, " if it was easy,women and small children would be doing it."

Putting technical, important sounding terms to simple movements is a way to justify charging money for.
post #36 of 44
Been away for a bit but the idea of using descriptive phrases is a good one SD, I would suggest that you begin by leaving out the letters (UUW,DUW, etc...) as well. Speak in simple language and phrases.
Inso far as not teaching maneuvers I would say at some point teaching skills and movements leads to doing a series of movements that are called maneuvers because they are more complex than isolated movements. Should that be rote progressions, hardly.
Inso far as intent, it's just like pool. Call your shot, then execute it. If you perform it well, great. If not that's where a coach comes in to play. They help you raise your performance level by zeroing in on the essential movements needed to accomplish your stated "shot". Beyond that the teaching model is simply designed to help newbies identify and satisfy the goals jointly established by the guest and the coach.
post #37 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
Been away for a bit but the idea of using descriptive phrases is a good one SD, I would suggest that you begin by leaving out the letters (UUW,DUW, etc...) as well. Speak in simple language and phrases.
Inso far as not teaching maneuvers I would say at some point teaching skills and movements leads to doing a series of movements that are called maneuvers because they are more complex than isolated movements. Should that be rote progressions, hardly.
Inso far as intent, it's just like pool. Call your shot, then execute it. If you perform it well, great. If not that's where a coach comes in to play. They help you raise your performance level by zeroing in on the essential movements needed to accomplish your stated "shot". Beyond that the teaching model is simply designed to help newbies identify and satisfy the goals jointly established by the guest and the coach.
Well I think i know what you are trying to say here but:

Using your pool analogy. If you were playing and called "6 in the corner pocket"...whether you made it, or missed...a truly professional coach/instructor would point out that what you should have done was go for the 3 in the side pocket as it would then have set you up for your next shot...

I dont care you wanted to go for the six in the corner...it was the wrong move. I'll teach you that. But second, and this is the point of the thread, the terms and concepts make it so the learning instructor up to the examiner can evaluate a skier and get the same outcome.

It is not good when a client goes to 3 different instructors and gets 3 sets of conflicting advice.

The purpose of the teaching orgs like the CSIA and PSIA etc is to ensure clients recieve consistent, high quality lessons....that will only come from a consistent set of desired outcomes and defs.
post #38 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
Well I think i know what you are trying to say here but:

Using your pool analogy. If you were playing and called "6 in the corner pocket"...whether you made it, or missed...a truly professional coach/instructor would point out that what you should have done was go for the 3 in the side pocket as it would then have set you up for your next shot...

I dont care you wanted to go for the six in the corner...it was the wrong move. I'll teach you that. But second, and this is the point of the thread, the terms and concepts make it so the learning instructor up to the examiner can evaluate a skier and get the same outcome.

It is not good when a client goes to 3 different instructors and gets 3 sets of conflicting advice.

The purpose of the teaching orgs like the CSIA and PSIA etc is to ensure clients recieve consistent, high quality lessons....that will only come from a consistent set of desired outcomes and defs.
Consistency is important SD. So is giving the customer what they paid for. If that is the 6 in the side pocket, show them how to hit that shot. Then go on to teach the why the three is a better choice instead of telling them the six is the "wrong" shot.
post #39 of 44
Quote:
This thread proves that it is in the interests of organized teaching systems to keep things complicated.
I agree. "intermediate" is just a term used to sell books and comes from being talked at by an instructor until you can't think for yourself
post #40 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
Consistency is important SD. So is giving the customer what they paid for. If that is the 6 in the side pocket, show them how to hit that shot. Then go on to teach the why the three is a better choice instead of telling them the six is the "wrong" shot.
Intresting....but dont you think the customer would actually be pretty pissed off to learn that they wasted there money on 6....when they should have gone for 3?

It is like working in a ski shop....customer A comes in and says I want to buy a pair of XYZ skis. I could say ok...here you go...or I could ask, what do you want to use them for? and then perhaps suggest that actually aBC skis are better.

In ski teaching someone may say to me, that they want to improve their bumps....but I notice that they start their turns with a strong tail push....to fix that, you need to bring the pivot point back under the foot....then from there they can learn bumps....so even though they wanted to learn bumps...we would spend alot fo time on the groomed doing pivoting exercises....then I would take them back to the bumps....the key point is...even if they said they wanted to work on powder, or shot turns, or even carving...I would still need to fix this fundamental issue first...hence what they want really only changes the "flavour" of the lesson...ie, where we will apply the new idea...but the original MA will not change...online here, where you are obviously only doing the MA then...it follows that knowing what someones goals are...is irrelevant.

CCT (customer centered teaching) is great...it is actually a CSIA concept...but that does not mean blindly doing what the client asked for...the ultimate goal of CCT is to set the client up for success. No amount of stuff will help this persons bumps without fixing there fundamentals. It is the ultimate job of the pro to lay out this path for the client...not the other way around.

In a typical SS setting this idea of students goals is really overstretched. Sure students have ambition, and that is great....but generally at the SS level...(ie not race camps or bump camps)...improving a persons fundamentals will help them whatever their goals are...ie...good solid fundatmentals will allow a skier to rip high speed GS, rip the bumps, rip the pow...etc etc.

Sure when you start competing in bumps or racing, then tactics become very important...and this is case specific...ie, no point in showing someone about the riseline if they want to be a bumper....but that is obviously an extreme example that I do not beleive would be an issue in 99% of all SS lessons.
post #41 of 44
SD,
I agree that working on the fundamental skills is the preferred pathway to acheiving long term success. Although I would add that even in one of your examples you wrote that you would take them to the bumps before the end of the lesson (which sounds a lot like your showing them how to put the six ball in the side pocket). So as far as I can tell their original goal did become part of your lesson plan and one of the goals for that day.

Imagine their dissatifaction if you told them, "No, I won't take you to the bumps because I know better than you what you should want." I can't tell you how many comp lessons I've done over the years because another instructor did exactly that.
post #42 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
Using your pool analogy. If you were playing and called "6 in the corner pocket"...whether you made it, or missed...a truly professional coach/instructor would point out that what you should have done was go for the 3 in the side pocket as it would then have set you up for your next shot...

I dont care you wanted to go for the six in the corner...it was the wrong move. I'll teach you that.
Here we go with "right" and "wrong" again.

I still don't see what can ever be considered "wrong" in skiing, or in billiards.
post #43 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja View Post
Here we go with "right" and "wrong" again.

I still don't see what can ever be considered "wrong" in skiing, or in billiards.
Any reasonable billiard player would not say such things.
post #44 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post
SD,
I agree that working on the fundamental skills is the preferred pathway to acheiving long term success. Although I would add that even in one of your examples you wrote that you would take them to the bumps before the end of the lesson (which sounds a lot like your showing them how to put the six ball in the side pocket). So as far as I can tell their original goal did become part of your lesson plan and one of the goals for that day.

Imagine their dissatifaction if you told them, "No, I won't take you to the bumps because I know better than you what you should want." I can't tell you how many comp lessons I've done over the years because another instructor did exactly that.

Totally agree Jasp,

I mentioned that you would experiment with the new ideas in the area the student wanted...3rd paragraph of my post #40...where I talk about "flavour". etc.......

But as I also mention...on Epic, you cant take them for a few runs to experiment...you can only do the MA bit....

I think we are in agreement here.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › The PSIA does NOT teach people how to ski!!!!!